It is an great idea. The Saudi plan really is the Tom Friedman plan. Also it was not so much that the Israelis rejected it as the Arabs never followed up on it.

I know it is in your ideological interest to believe that a Palestinian civil war will spillover to Israel but there seems no evidence of this. If, as I assume, you oppose Americans being in the middle of the civil war in Iraq do why get in the middle of one in Gaza?

How is a European military alliance, NATO, going to be persuaded to take Israel as a member? I think it would be good for NATO it would provide the alliance along with the United States, and Britain a serious military force. However, given the problems of Turkey being admitted into the EU I am skeptical of the Europeans willingness to admit Israel.

You certainly don't support Israel, as you do by blaming Israel for everything and supporting policies that give aid and comfort to the killers of Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

MJ,

Israelis who dismissed the plan said that Israel would never return to the ’67 lines and that the plan’s invoking of the Palestinian right-of-return made it a non-starter.

That's not true....

CNN March 27, 2002:

The Israeli government reacted to the Saudi proposal with caution, but Alon Pinkas, the Israeli consul general in New York, said Israel is ready to discuss the initiative

"Look, the Saudi idea has a lot of positive elements in it, which is why we have never dismissed it at face value," Pinkas said. "Quite the contrary, we said we will endorse and enter a dialogue with the Saudis or anyone else -- indeed in the entire Arab world -- if they are serious on the normalization issue. The thing is, that life in the Middle East has taught us to be extremely skeptical and extremely wary of these kind of declarations until they are actually delivered in the Arabic language."

The Guardian

Aides to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said the term "normal relations" was too vague and rejected any right of return for refugees, though reference to a "fair solution" may leave some room for negotiation. An aide to the prime minister said: "The new fact that the Saudi crown prince was able to get the peace initiative passed is a very interesting development, something that should be pursued, but it has to involve direct negotiations with Israel."

Someone needs to show the Arab League followup to these public expressions by the Israeli government of its willingness to pursue negotiations along the principles of the Beirut proposal before we accuse Israel of rejecting it and blaming Israel for its unfulfillment.

Further, when Ariel Sharon expressed the desire to address the 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit, it was roundly dismissed and condemned by Arab League delegates and attacked as an insult to the memory of Sabra and Shatila, even as the party of the Christian Phalangist militia that did the actual slaughtering at Sabra and Shatila held a seat in Beirut's parliament.

I think the key, which MJ hits on, is that the Saudi plan isn't a plan at all but is just a framework for negotiations.  It will allow negiotiations and diplomacy to take place.  But for me what is significant, as much today as when I first heard it, is the recognition of Israel by 22 arab states if the deal on Palestine can get done.  Israel's legitmacy will be universal and her right to exist will no longer be able to be questioned by her enemies.  That is the goal and the Saudi plan is a great starting point. 

The Saudis floated it out there it was largely ignored by the Israeli government and the Saudis never followed up in pushing the initiative.  But I agree with MJ the time is right with Iran being a potenital threat not only Israel but to her arab neighbors and many arab states dealing with internal strife...there might never be a better time.

Getting way ahead of myself here, but the thing I most like about Israel and Palestine being in NATO is the kind of legitimacy that even very small contingents of Palestinian peace keepers would bring to NATO actions. Would certainly be hard to lump them in with imperialists...

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Kvenlander,
Brilliant point. The administration leads, the media follows.
Iraq is a civil war but they aren't allowed to say that.
The Palestinians, whom we disdain -- well, we can say anything we want about them.
But you are right. Not yet a civil war. Hopefully, it won't be.

But what if there is no peace deal acceptable to both the Palestinians and the Israelis?

The deals I read about go, give up some land and then come up the a solution to the refugee question that the Arabs can accept, and then there will be a just peace.

OK.  What is this solution to the refugee question that the Arabs can accept?

What is the solution to the water problem that the Arabs can accept?

What happens when a political party wins the Palestinian election on a platform of ejecting the NATO forces from their territory and creating a Hezbollah inspired defensive force, complete with missiles that can reach all of israel to be used only in self defense?

What happens with the 40% of Palestinians and Arabs who are not satisfied with a larger population than Israels, when refugees are included making do with 22% of their historic homeland?

There is no long-term and one medium-term formula for the survival of Zionism, which is to keep as many Arabs as possible under the rule of corrupt, unpopular pro-Western dictators, which includes trying as hard as possible to turn Abbas in Palestine and Senyora in Lebanon into corrupt, unpopular pro-Western dictators.

This is a fact that MJ Rosenberg apparently openly acknowledges:

Personally, I never much cared whether Israel's neighbors were democratic so long as they were willing to live in peace with Israel.

Jordan, for instance, is not a democracy in the western sense but it is precisely the kind of neighbor Israel needs. Egypt is not a democracy but is at peace with Israel. A democratic Egypt probably would not be. So let's lay the democratic crusade aside (which, of course, we do anyway if we don't like the choices made by the voters in these various countries).

There are two problems with the assertion that advocates of staying the course are bad for Israel.  The first problem is changing course is no better.  The second problem is that as it becomes clearer that advocacy of Zionism implies opposition to democracy, it is impossible to defend advocacy of Zionism morally.

. The second problem is that as it becomes clearer that advocacy of Zionism implies opposition to democracy, it is impossible to defend advocacy of Zionism morally

Only if you believe that it is always immoral to oppose democracy , which is arguable.

And of course if you also accept the premise , which is arguable.

Arnold Evans allludes to all of the reasons why Hamas and Hezbollah will never support the Saudi plan and never agree to NATO as a buffer.

Mr. Rosenberg, stop wasting everybody's time on silliness. Do something useful: go to Gaza and Nablus and kill all the Hamas thugs. Then go to Lebanon and do the same with Hezbollah. After that, we can talk about the Saudi plan having a chance of actually working.

Libertine,

But for me what is significant, as much today as when I first heard it, is the recognition of Israel by 22 arab states if the deal on Palestine can get done.  Israel's legitmacy will be universal and her right to exist will no longer be able to be questioned by her enemies.

Why can't Arab League recognition of Jewish national legitimacy and Israel's right to exist precede sealing the deal on Palestine?  Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that easing Israeli security concerns would actually facilitate such a deal?  Even if Israel exhibited hesitancy in the process, or otherwise disappointed the Arab establishment in regard to Palestine, what would prevent Arab nations from recalling their ambassadors and going back to square one with nothing lost from their wager?

NATO and/or participation in European market, Eurozone, etc

Would be interesting to perhaps join Israel's timeline to Euro membership and Turkey's

Really what's needed is an overall plan and settlement-of-differences agreement for the Mid-East, supporting which is the signature US policy position for the whole region
Anyone who wants anything there would have to sign onto it and agree to defend it

It could include some very basic human rights guarantees, but not implementation of democracy as we know it, be focussed around border issues, basic ethnic, political and religious rights within any member country and some level of transparent coordination with regional anti-terror initiatives
Something a Muslim state with its own unique form of political organization could sign and uphold

"Israel is democratic and secular state for both Jews and Arabs with Jews being majority."

It's not so simple, as you know. Discrimination even within Israel proper is written in law, and the territories are something else, as even the liberal zionist Rosenberg admits. And now you're asking the negroes to prove their maturity? As opposed to what, the russians?

But your open-mindedness concerning the possibility of a bi-national state is a beginning.

To be idealistic, I would say that only Jews and Arabs who could prove that the disputed territories(Israel+Gaza+West Bank)is their homeland(are born there or their identifiable parents or ancesters wre born there) would be the citizens of this new democratic and secular state. All others Jews and Arabs are welcome but only as guests.
Israel could not be this state since 1/it considers(by definition) that it is a Jewish state (Jews must be the majority) 2/ its creteria for citizenship are discriminatory: if you are a Jew, you automatically get the citizenship wherever you may originate from; if you are a Palestinian in exile, you are not even allowed to go back home even if your family's home is still there.
Thus, I'm not talking at all about the state you have imagined.
I don't care whether Jews or Arabs are majority. I just mean that religious beliefs cannot not be a basis for a state and legitimate it, that's unfortunately the case of Israel. In addition, I think of all those miserable people who were obliged to leave their homes and their lands in order to make possible a majority for Jews(European, Sepharads, Falashas, Russians, and so on)
As for Arab states, you're right. Indeed, they are not particularly fair toward minorities even though your criticism is not well grounded(abortion is allowed whereas it's not in Portugal and in Poland and even in the U.S., gays are not killed,and so on). Anyway, comparision is meaningless.

I had to come back to your comment to rate and comment on it, Libertine, because your point about "framework" really stuck in my mind.

I attended a conflict resolution seminar once, and, yes, the first task was to somehow bring the conflicting parties to the table - to persuade both that there could be a resolution that would be mutually advantages.

From that perspective it's pretty easy to see the Saudi proposal as the triumph of form over content. 

"The play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

Great point. 

Neoboho

Listen up, jerk neoboho:

"Iraquification"? Nonsense.

Israel isn't dealing with insurgents in their county. It is trying to stop assholes intent on invading and lobbing deadly rockets into their country with the aim of taking it over to eliminate it as a Jewish national homeland.

When those assholes are all dead, then Israel can reasonably be expected to negotiate over the West Bank, as it was willing to do in 2000 until your friend Arafat pissed away the chance for peace.

AM YISROAEL CHAI! VIVA THE LOBBY!

I figure out you've recently read Mein Kempf?
I'm just kidding you!
If you were a Palestinian, you were forced by foreigner activists to leave your home, you were living in refugees'camps in Gaza, you were unemployed, half your family were killed and so on, would you tell me how you'd behave?

Let me preface this by saying I think recognition of Israel shouldn't be an issue with anybody right now.

That being said, it is what it is, the arab nations don't recognize Israel.  They view that recognition and normalization of relations intrinsically tied to the formation of a Palestinian State.  Would you expect the arab states to cede on an issue they feel is one to their advantage in getting a Palestinian State established before any of the negotiations even start?

Libertine,

Would you expect the arab states to cede on an issue they feel is one to their advantage in getting a Palestinian State established before any of the negotiations even start?

The Arab states have alot less to lose on their end of the deal.  For example, it would not take as much for the Arab establishment to reverse normalization - ie, recalling their respective diplomats - as it would for Israel to reverse its disengagement.  In other words, since it seems reasonable to suggest that Arab League recognition of Israel would facilitate the process, it makes me skeptical of how serious the offer really is.

I mean Human Beings who were peacefully living in Haifa, in Deir Yassin, in Al Qods(Jerusalem) and so on who fled their homes to avoid Irgoun and Hagana and Lehi and Yichouv's terror.
Thus, would you please try at least once to consider that Palestinians are as Human Beings as Jews and then maybe you will appreciate all the conflict under a different scope.

M.J.

Congratulations on your new organization with Daniel Levy and George Soros. I wish you much success. I hope you will occaisionally remember that there is a vast gulf between AIPAC and your views. That is where you will find most American Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel Greenbaum,

The Palestinians are human beings who could have had a state in 1948 and many times afterward. However, I, unlike you treat them as adults who have made a series of foolish choices and have been led by crooks and fools.

When you acknowledge that the Palestinians have not been passive victims of Israel, in anything more victims of Jordanians and Egyptians it will be easierto take you serious.

While it is hardly we commenters who in any position to "treat" Palestinians or anyone else in any substantive way whatsoever, Daniel makes a good point.  Too often in discussions like these The Middle East conflict is approached as a simple two-party conflict where Israel is assumed to be the only party to have any real control over its circumstances.  Yes, the Palestinians have historically been treated poorly by Israel, but they have also been negatively impacted by historic imperial policies of the West, and continue to be impacted by ongoing policies of most member nations of the Arab League and a healthy portion of the Muslim world.

Libertine,

I see what you are saying but I am trying to look at it from the Arab perspective.

I am looking at it from the perspective of Arab establishment leadership.  They have institutionally demonized Israel so thoroughly that they can no longer afford to recognize its legitimacy without alienating their own masses. I am afraid that we are at an unfortunate point where it is in the best interests of Arab leadership to sustain conflict between Israelis and Palestinians to avoid conflict in their own back yards.  And I suspect that is why the Arab League had rejected Sharon's desire to address the Beirut Summit, and has yet to follow through with the diplomacy one would expect from the positive comments by Sharon and his aides as the Saudi proposal was adopted in Beirut in 2002, and since Israeli disengagement from Gaza.